(July 15, 2017 at 8:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(July 15, 2017 at 7:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"Just stop, you're done.
No.... I'm not. But if you are not going to discuss what you mean, then you are the one who is done. Some mythicist may take your silence to mean, that you do not know.
Quote:Quote:I don't disagree with that.... I think it is similar what is referred to as an inate sense, in many arguements by theists.
You'd have to be arguing for an objective morality, you aren't. Our innate sense, that provides us with reliable moral guesses, is called "empathy". It helps us, for example, understand harm. It doesn't..however, provide or inform us as to an objective moral schema.
So, you don't think that morality is a properly basic belief?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther